ReviewBMC health services research2020
Closing the loop on test results to reduce communication failures: a rapid review of evidence, practice and patient perspectives.
Review in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Best practices in sample management & pre-analytical quality control: overcoming challenges in resource-limited laboratory settings.Tropical medicine and health · 2026Review
- Specifying pathway requirements for mobile outreach cancer testing before rollout: an implementation-aware Target Product Profile method.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Clinician perspectives on blood culture practice and diagnostic stewardship in regional emergency departments.Journal of medical microbiology · 2026Article
- Implementation of the BIOFIRE Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel: A Mixed-Methods Implementation Study in a Nonmetropolitan Tertiary Hospital.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Mapping colorectal cancer screening workflows in primary care.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Bridging Global Frameworks and Local Practice: Quantitative Evaluation of Electronic Health Record Safety in Kuwait's Public Hospitals.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Notification of blood donors who test positive for transfusion-transmissible infections.Vox sanguinis · 2025Article
- Common contributing factors of diagnostic error: A retrospective analysis of 109 serious adverse event reports from Dutch hospitals.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- An Evolution of Reporting: Identifying the Missing Link.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunication failures involving test results contribute to issues of patient harm and sentinel events. This article aims to synthesise review evidence, practice insights and patient perspectives addressing problems encountered in the communication of diagnostic test results.
methodsThe rapid review identified ten systematic reviews and four narrative reviews. Five practitioner interviews identified insights into interventions and implementation, and a citizen panel with 15 participants explored the patient viewpoint.
resultsThe rapid review provided support for the role of technology to ensure effective communication; behavioural interventions such as audit and feedback could be effective in changing clinician behaviour; and point-of-care tests (bedside testing) eliminate the communication breakdown problem altogether. The practice interviews highlighted transparency, and clarifying the lines of responsibility as central to improving test result communication. Enabling better information sharing, implementing adequate planning and utilising technology were also identified in the practice interviews as viable strategies to improve test result communication. The citizen panel highlighted technology as critical to improving communication of test results to both health professionals and patients. Patients also highlighted the importance of having different ways of accessing test results, which is particularly pertinent when ensuring suitability for vulnerable populations.
conclusionsThis paper draws together multiple perspectives on the problem of failures in diagnostic test results communication to inform appropriate interventions. Across the three studies, technology was identified as the most feasible option for closing the loop on test result communication. However, the importance of clear, consistent communication and more streamlined processes were also key elements that emerged. REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol for the rapid review was registered with PROSPERO CRD42018093316 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.